Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2509.13852

Trace Sampling 2.0: Code Knowledge Enhanced Span-level Sampling for Distributed Tracing

Abstract

Distributed tracing is an essential diagnostic tool in microservice systems, but the sheer volume of traces places a significant burden on backend storage. A common approach to mitigating this issue is trace sampling, which selectively retains traces based on specific criteria, often preserving only anomalous ones. However, this method frequently discards valuable information, including normal traces that are essential for comparative analysis. To address this limitation, we introduce Trace Sampling 2.0, which operates at the span level while maintaining trace structure consistency. This approach allows for the retention of all traces while significantly reducing storage overhead. Based on this concept, we design and implement Autoscope, a span-level sampling method that leverages static analysis to extract execution logic, ensuring that critical spans are preserved without compromising structural integrity. We evaluated Autoscope on two open-source microservices. Our results show that it reduces trace size by 81.2% while maintaining 98.1% faulty span coverage, outperforming existing trace-level sampling methods. Furthermore, we demonstrate its effectiveness in root cause analysis, achieving an average improvement of 8.3%. These findings indicate that Autoscope can significantly enhance observability and storage efficiency in microservices, offering a robust solution for performance monitoring.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Yulun Wu, Guangba Yu, Zhihan Jiang, Yichen Li, Michael R. Lyu. 2025-09-17. Trace Sampling 2.0: Code Knowledge Enhanced Span-level Sampling for Distributed Tracing. https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.13852

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE